United States v. Westcom
| Decision Date | 25 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:13-cr-93 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KIRT WESTCOM |
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
(Doc. 23)
This matter came before the court on January 2 and 22, 2014 for an evidentiary hearing on Defendant Kirt Westcom's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 23) obtained from a May 29, 2013 warrantless search of his residence. Defendant contends that the government cannot establish his consent to the search was voluntary. The government opposes the motion, arguing that Defendant's consent was voluntary and that law enforcement's advice to Defendant that he had only two options—consent or a search warrant—was neither coercive or deceitful.
Defendant is charged in a two count Superseding Indictment with conspiracy to distribute marijuana involving 100 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana and possession of a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
The government is represented by Assistant United States Attorney Heather E. Ross and Assistant United States Attorney Kevin J. Doyle. Defendant is represented by Katina F. Ready, Esq.
Defendant and his wife, Billie Westcom, reside at 262 Egypt Road in East Fairfield, Vermont, where they operate a farm. Defendant's father, Harold Westcom, lives at 264 Egypt Road, accessed by a common driveway with Defendant's residence.Harold Westcom shares ownership with his son of a large barn that is approximately eighteen yards from Harold Westcom's residence and approximately 120 yards from Defendant's residence. The barn includes a milkhouse that is on Harold Westcom's property. Photographs of the barn introduced into evidence reveal that it clearly appears to be associated with Harold Westcom's residence.
On May 29, 2013 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m., six law enforcement agents in two unmarked vehicles arrived at Defendant's single family residence. Three agents approached the residence while the remaining law enforcement officers stood outside their vehicles in Defendant's driveway approximately 75 to 100 feet from the front door of Defendant's residence. These remaining officers were visible from the front door of the residence.
Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") Task Force Agent Robert Sylvia, a member of the Chittenden County Sheriff's Office, took the lead on the initial approach to Defendant's residence and was accompanied by DEA Task Force Agent Daniel Merchand and DEA Task Force Agent Michael Grindle. The men were dressed in plain clothes and carried holstered firearms. Agent Sylvia knocked on the front door, and Billie Westcom answered. Agent Sylvia asked to speak to Defendant. Billie Westcom retreated from the front door, called out to her husband, and Defendant subsequently appeared at the front door and stepped out onto a large, covered porch where the agents were waiting.
Thereafter, Agent Sylvia stood within arm's length of Defendant. He was aware from his investigation that Defendant drank alcohol and possibly used drugs. He testified that he had extensive experience with people under the influence of alcohol, but claimed he could not smell intoxicants. Agent Merchand, who was standing behind Agent Sylvia, however, could smell the odor of intoxicants emanating from Defendant from several feet away. Both agents believed that Defendant may have been under the influence of either alcohol or narcotics or both, and Agent Sylvia noticed that Defendant's eyes were "pretty glossy." (Tr. 1/2/14 at 14:4-7.)
Billie Westcom, who herself had three or four beers that evening, remained in the doorway and watched the encounter. It was her impression that Defendant was intoxicated because she had watched him drink alcohol that evening and stumble as he walked to the front door. Defendant also testified that he had been drinking.
Agent Sylvia identified the DEA agents to Defendant and showed Defendant his DEA credentials. He expressed concern regarding whether Defendant understood him and asked Defendant if he was drunk or high. Defendant responded by laughing and saying he was "fine." Id. at 15:3-12. Agent Sylvia suggested to Defendant that "later on someone might say that they were intoxicated . . . and they didn't want to talk to the police." Id. at 15:5-8. He, however, did not pursue the issue further and concluded that Defendant could understand him sufficiently to proceed.
The DEA agents explained to Defendant the nature of the investigation which led them to Defendant's residence that evening. Agent Sylvia told Defendant they had gleaned information in the course of their activities that day that indicated that Defendant was engaged in marijuana trafficking, that he had become a "focal point" of their investigation, (Tr. 1/22/14 at 5:6), and that marijuana would be found in his residence. In response, Defendant laughed and said, "no, there's nothing in there and that there's just some stuff for my head." (Tr. 1/2/14 at 17:15-19.) Agent Sylvia understood this to mean drugs for personal use.1
Agent Sylvia informed Defendant that the DEA had executed a number of search warrants that day in Franklin County as part of their marijuana trafficking investigation, including at Jeffrey Donna's store, and asked Defendant if he had heard about it. BillieWestcom responded that they had heard about it. When the agents questioned her regarding her source of information, she declined to answer them.
Agent Sylvia advised Defendant that he had only two options. Defendant could grant consent for the agents to search his residence or Agent Sylvia would seize the residence, obtain a warrant, and search the residence that evening. Defendant credibly testified that it was his "understanding it was either let them in or they were going to haul [Defendant and Billie Westcom] away and get a warrant and search it anyways" and that it was his "understanding" based on what Agent Sylvia "told" him that the agents "were going to [search] that day no matter what." (Tr. 1/22/14 at 36:5-25.) Agent Sylvia did not advise Defendant of his right to refuse consent or indicate that a search warrant may or may not be granted, although Agent Sylvia has been denied search warrants in the past.
The conversation on the front porch lasted no more than fifteen minutes. The agents did not raise their voices, although Agent Sylvia confronted Defendant with his belief that Defendant was "deeply involved" in marijuana trafficking and with his certainty that incriminating evidence would be found in Defendant's home. (Tr. 1/2/14 at 17:10-21.) Other than their presence, the agents made no display or threats of physical force. Contrary to Defendant's testimony, the court does not find that he asked for a lawyer while on the front porch.
In response to Agent Sylvia's presentation of the option to either consent or have his residence seized until a warrant issued, Defendant told Agent Sylvia to "do what you have to," id. at 19:2, and waived the agents inside. At that point, Agent Merchand indicated that any agents who remained in the driveway should follow him into the residence and they did so.
Agent Sylvia did not solicit Billie Westcom's consent to the search, although she remained present throughout the encounter. Upon entry into the residence, Agent Sylvia did not ask Defendant to sign a written consent form because he "[d]idn't need to." Id. at 37:22-38:1. Agent Sylvia testified that although he could have drafted a written consent form, he "very often" performs warrantless searches of residences without writtenconsent and that it is "[f]requently" his "practice" to search a residence based solely on verbal consent for Id. at 59:7-19.2
Inside the residence, Agent Merchand noticed deer heads mounted on the living room wall and asked Defendant if there were any weapons in the residence. Defendant admitted that there was a loaded shotgun in his bedroom. Agent Merchand went into Defendant's bedroom with several other agents and retrieved the weapon. While in the bedroom, Agent Merchand observed marijuana paraphernalia, some marijuana shake, and "a little small bud." (Tr. 1/22/14 at 9:20-21.) He also observed an open safe in a closet with an odor of marijuana.
In the foyer of the residence, Agent Sylvia again questioned Defendant about the amount of marijuana that would be found in the home, and Defendant continued to "say that there's nothing in here [and] he didn't know why we would be there and just said that the only other thing he had was upstairs [and] was a few marijuana plants." (Tr. 1/2/14 at 21:1-5.) Either during this conversation or shortly thereafter, additional agents entered the residence after being summoned by Agent Sylvia from nearby agencies. Eventually, there were fourteen agents involved in the search of Defendant's home.
Defendant motioned to the agents as he walked upstairs, and Agents Sylvia and Grindle followed him. There, they found a closed door with a combination padlock. Defendant manipulated the combination and opened the door, which the agents entered. Inside the room, Agent Sylvia observed that Id. at 22:21-23:3. Agent Grindle confronted Defendant with "the true investigation, which was not about a couple of marijuana plants in his upstairs bedroom." id. at 23:21-22, and provided details of the "bigger investigation" in which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial